How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Copernicus]

You didn’t read Copernicus’ posts.
You also didn’t watch the fifty minute video I posted.
FAIL.

Oh, Barbos read Copernicus’ post, I’m sure. Desiring to respond is another matter.

I actually doubt that barbos himself watched either of the videos that he posted links to. He barely takes the time to read and absorb replies that people make to his posts. So he may not even realize or even care that the Mearsheimer I was referring to was actually the person speaking in those videos.

 

[Copernicus]

The G7 just dropped the hammer on Poots. The ball is in his court again.

If Putin invades, then he isn't thinking rationally. I really think that people overestimate Putin's abilities. We don't really know what Putin is thinking. That is something that struck me as I was watching the Chicago Mearsheimer video. Mearsheimer kept talking about the possibility of Putin trying to take over all of Ukraine or do something else that would be a serious miscalculation, and he would dismiss it by saying "Putin is too smart to do that." Mearsheimer was reassuring himself that his Putin was a rational actor who would only do what was in the best interests of his country. I think that Putin only does what he calculates is in his own best interests, and he doesn't distinguish between his country's interests and his own. He might be playing a "wag the dog" strategy with Ukraine, but he could find himself in a situation where he can't back away very easily. The G7 threat may deter him, but it could also drive him to escalate, if he thinks that backing away would make him look too weak.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But the Putin is still living in the USSR. He claims he had to moonlight as a taxi driver to make ends meet after the USSR collapsed. He refers to the event in Armageddon terms. I haven't seen him doing what Hitler and Trump did to gain popular support, namely tell everyone how they have been betrayed and cheated. He's not a deep person in my view, just another outgrowth of the historical authoritarian Russian state. Were he to invade Ukraine it would be like the US invading parts of Mexico or Canada. For me the real issue is that he isn't an overly smart person and he's likely to invade Ukraine.

 

[laughing dog]

I know of only two effective methods of dealing with a bully. One is to continually ignore the bully. The other is to call the bully's bluff - either the bully backs down or if the bully does not, you literally or figuratively annihilate the creep depending on the situation.

 

[Copernicus]

One thing I should have mentioned earlier is that the two videos are now somewhat dated. The Chicago lecture was made in 2015, not too long after the Russian invasion and during the Obama administration. The Burcharest talk was delivered in 2018. I haven't tried to listen to the longer Bucharest talk, but I may spot check a few places to see whether he is saying anything differently during the Trump administration. I imagine that they came to barbos' attention because the Putin administration has amassed a lot of material to present to his domestic base, and Mearsheimer would obviously be something that they would approve as part of their propaganda campaign to justify Putin's aggression in Ukraine.

 

[Jayjay]

There isn't much the US can do militarily. Giving weapons to Ukraine in small amounts can be easily matched by Russia. Giving a large amount of weapons or even sending troops to Ukraine would be a major operations that's telegraphed a long time ahead, and Russia still has the advantage of moving first and securing whatever land it needs. Military solutions are just not going to work.

Threatening with sanctions and cutting off SWIFT or Nordstream 2 might be effective, but Russia can try to avoid them by taking baby steps so small that at any point in time it would seem like a huge overkill to react with such extreme measures. Which is what it has been doing until now.

Doing nothing is also not very effective. Time is on Putin's side. He's in good health, and he can let eastern Ukraine simmer until the time is right. Only people left there at this point are Russian loyalists anyway, and the longer time passes, the less likely it is that the refugees who escaped it will even want to return.

 

[Copernicus]

Having started to listen to barbos' second Mearsheimer video, I confess that it doesn't strike me as really relevant to the topic of this thread--the Ukraine situation. Rather, it is a more general lecture on Mearsheimer's view of the evils of "liberal hegemony", which he tends to equate with US foreign policy. He starts out with very nice definitions of "liberalism" and "nationalism", which are two different ways to see world politics, and then he launches into his ideas about where the US goes wrong in pursuing its so-called liberal hegemony. The discussion is quite interesting, but not really relevant to the topic here. So I don't intend to comment further on the Bucharest lecture, although I may continue watching it for my own edification. Mearsheimer isn't a bad speaker, and he is promoting a book that he had just published. I still think he goes astray by treating most countries outside of liberal democracies as if liberal democracy did not matter to the citizens of those countries. Rather he tends to see it as something that the US and other democracies are responsible for promoting. IOW, all of those popular uprisings against authoritarian regimes are caused by US meddling, not globalization. In fact, I am curious to see what, if anything, he has to say about the globalization of economies, since he seems to realize that authoritarian leaders depend on liberal democracies as a safe haven for their private wealth. It is certainly something that matters to a lot of Russians, and that is why Putin faces a lot of popular opposition these days. He is trying to promote nationalism over liberalism as the correct perspective to take on current events.

ETA: An interesting fact about Mearscheimer is that he is not a conservative Trump-supporting American. Nor is he some kind of Putin apologist, although I'm sure that he has been accused of that. He is a liberal-progressive Democrat who has supported Bernie Sanders in the past. Had Sanders managed to become President, Mearscheimer could possibly have become part of the Sanders administration and played a role in shaping US foreign policy. He would be deeply opposed to Biden's foreign policy, which he would equate with liberal hegemony.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you do NOT want World War Three, the correct response is to say "We condemn this in the strongest possible terms. We're going to add your name to the list of countries we consider to be bad guys, and we won't send you a Christmas card this year."

There are a lot of people here who appear to want WWIII. They think they don't. They think fighting Russia in Ukraine will be even easier than the promised Iraqi cakewalk.

 

[barbos]

One thing I should have mentioned earlier is that the two videos are now somewhat dated.

That's rich coming from people who still live in the 1960s.

 

[barbos]

Having started to listen to barbos' second Mearsheimer video, I confess that it doesn't strike me as really relevant to the topic of this thread--the Ukraine situation. Rather, it is a more general lecture on Mearsheimer's view of the evils of "liberal hegemony", which he tends to equate with US foreign policy. He starts out with very nice definitions of "liberalism" and "nationalism", which are two different ways to see world politics, and then he launches into his ideas about where the US goes wrong in pursuing its so-called liberal hegemony. The discussion is quite interesting, but not really relevant to the topic here. So I don't intend to comment further on the Bucharest lecture, although I may continue watching it for my own edification. Mearsheimer isn't a bad speaker, and he is promoting a book that he had just published. I still think he goes astray by treating most countries outside of liberal democracies as if liberal democracy did not matter to the citizens of those countries. Rather he tends to see it as something that the US and other democracies are responsible for promoting. IOW, all of those popular uprisings against authoritarian regimes are caused by US meddling, not globalization. In fact, I am curious to see what, if anything, he has to say about the globalization of economies, since he seems to realize that authoritarian leaders depend on liberal democracies as a safe haven for their private wealth. It is certainly something that matters to a lot of Russians, and that is why Putin faces a lot of popular opposition these days. He is trying to promote nationalism over liberalism as the correct perspective to take on current events.

ETA: An interesting fact about Mearscheimer is that he is not a conservative Trump-supporting American. Nor is he some kind of Putin apologist, although I'm sure that he has been accused of that. He is a liberal-progressive Democrat who has supported Bernie Sanders in the past. Had Sanders managed to become President, Mearscheimer could possibly have become part of the Sanders administration and played a role in shaping US foreign policy. He would be deeply opposed to Biden's foreign policy, which he would equate with liberal hegemony.

You clearly did not watch it in full, skipping over it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

After the fall Russia had a bunch of kleptocrats each trying to take as much of the pie as they could. Now that Putin has consolidated power less is wasted on infighting.

and your point?

Of course the economy improved. That doesn't say what Putin is doing is good.

 

[barbos]

After the fall Russia had a bunch of kleptocrats each trying to take as much of the pie as they could. Now that Putin has consolidated power less is wasted on infighting.

and your point?

Of course the economy improved. That doesn't say what Putin is doing is good.

Actually it does it always does. That's the whole "It's economy stupid!" point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's my question, to which I expect an answer, given the title:

What would be the result if a plebiscite were held in east Ukraine? Would east Ukrainians vote to stay in Ukraine, or vote for independence? Or would they vote to join Russia?

How do we know what the sentiment is of east Ukrainians?

Is the West willing to submit to such a plebiscite, allowing pro-Russian Ukrainians to separate from Ukraine, if their number is large enough? If the West is not willing to have such a plebiscite and respect the results (whatever they might be), how can we blame Russia for its intervention there?

My guess is that they would not vote to join Russia. But if that's true, why should we be against a plebiscite? Why shouldn't we propose it? Are we afraid how the vote might turn out?

Such a plebiscite has already been held. Russia made sure it was far from fair--that means they didn't expect to win it if it was fair. Thus we can conclude that the takeover was undesired.

Complete and utter garbage. Your State Department neocons know results reflected actual opinion, that's why they were against it and more importantly they are not demanding for a redo.

There would be no point to a redo.

1) That plebiscite had the catastrophic flaw that the status quo pre hostilities wasn't an option.

2) The voting was contaminated by Russia importing a bunch of people and declaring them valid voters. The vote should have been limited to those resident in the area before hostilities, wherever they were at the time of the vote.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know of only two effective methods of dealing with a bully. One is to continually ignore the bully. The other is to call the bully's bluff - either the bully backs down or if the bully does not, you literally or figuratively annihilate the creep depending on the situation.

That's assuming you can. In the real world standing up to the bully likely gets you smashed.

 

[barbos]

Here's my question, to which I expect an answer, given the title:

What would be the result if a plebiscite were held in east Ukraine? Would east Ukrainians vote to stay in Ukraine, or vote for independence? Or would they vote to join Russia?

How do we know what the sentiment is of east Ukrainians?

Is the West willing to submit to such a plebiscite, allowing pro-Russian Ukrainians to separate from Ukraine, if their number is large enough? If the West is not willing to have such a plebiscite and respect the results (whatever they might be), how can we blame Russia for its intervention there?

My guess is that they would not vote to join Russia. But if that's true, why should we be against a plebiscite? Why shouldn't we propose it? Are we afraid how the vote might turn out?

Such a plebiscite has already been held. Russia made sure it was far from fair--that means they didn't expect to win it if it was fair. Thus we can conclude that the takeover was undesired.

Complete and utter garbage. Your State Department neocons know results reflected actual opinion, that's why they were against it and more importantly they are not demanding for a redo.

There would be no point to a redo.

1) That plebiscite had the catastrophic flaw that the status quo pre hostilities wasn't an option.
2) The voting was contaminated by Russia importing a bunch of people and declaring them valid voters. The vote should have been limited to those resident in the area before hostilities, wherever they were at the time of the vote.

Bullcrap, according to MSM, Cimea is a concentration camp where ukrainian people are being regularly shot on the streets by 10 millions russian soldiers. They sure would vote for going back to Ukraine.

The voting was contaminated by Russia importing a bunch of people and declaring them valid voters.

Sure, Russia imported 10 millions people to get to 90% Yes vote.
Don't like results of the voting - declare them rigged. Reminds you of anything?

 

[barbos]

You didn’t read Copernicus’ posts.
You also didn’t watch the fifty minute video I posted.
FAIL.

Oh, Barbos read Copernicus’ post, I’m sure. Desiring to respond is another matter.

I actually doubt that barbos himself watched either of the videos that he posted links to. He barely takes the time to read and absorb replies that people make to his posts. So he may not even realize or even care that the Mearsheimer I was referring to was actually the person speaking in those videos.

[removed] I have watched first video in full. The reason I don't respond to crap you all post is because you clearly have not watched the video in full or at all and just post the same old BS you always post, which I have addressed countless number of times.

The reason I posted the video is because the guy has a lot of authority and he is 100% agrees with me, using exactly the same arguments I have been using. You should not be able to discount him as easily as me. I was wrong, you discounted him pretty easily the same way you discounted Pozner simply by reading the title of the video and declaring him a Putin's stooge.

 

[Copernicus]

...
I actually doubt that barbos himself watched either of the videos that he posted links to. He barely takes the time to read and absorb replies that people make to his posts. So he may not even realize or even care that the Mearsheimer I was referring to was actually the person speaking in those videos.

[removed I have watched first video in full. The reason I don't respond to crap you all post is because you clearly have not watched the video in full or at all and just post the same old BS you always post, which I have addressed countless number of times.

[removed] if I sincerely believed what I said, even if you did watch the video in full. I think that I had good reason to doubt that you had, but I'm happy to take your word for it. I also watched it in full, which you would know if you had been paying attention to the posts in this thread. You made no substantive comment on the content, so there is no way of knowing what you watched or understood of his lecture. You usually just post little tweet-sized reactions to my posts, so I don't count those as "addressing" my posts. They are little more than acknowledgements that you saw I had posted something. [removed]

The reason I posted the video is because the guy has a lot of authority and he is 100% agrees with me, using exactly the same arguments I have been using. You should not be able to discount him as easily as me. I was wrong, you discounted him pretty easily the same way you discounted Pozner simply by reading the title of the video and declaring him a Putin's stooge.

You really don't read my posts. In my last post, I explicitly said that he wasn't a Putin stooge (i.e. apologist). Go back and read the post for a change. Take some time to absorb it. I have made a lot of comments about the content of those videos, and you have said virtually nothing about them except that you agree with the guy. That doesn't suggest to me that you watched the videos, and you certainly didn't say anything substantive to refute anything I said about them. Do you actually know anything about the field of political science? You posted links to videos of a well-known political scientist. I actually have far more respect for his views than yours, and I appreciate the fact that you linked to that first video, which I really hope you did watch in full. You might have learned a few things. It still remains a fact that his analyses have come under a lot of criticism from other political scientists, and he fully admits that. I did point you to a couple of Wikipedia pages that could give you background on his theory and some criticisms of it, but I don't think that you bothered to read my posts very carefully or that you would bother looking at links that I posted, even if they are only to some rather short Wikipedia pages.

 

[barbos]

You really don't read my posts. In my last post, I explicitly said that he wasn't a Putin stooge

"You" are not the only one "you" in here.
There are a bunch of other "you" in here who did call him a stooge.

 

[Copernicus]

You really don't read my posts. In my last post, I explicitly said that he wasn't a Putin stooge

"You" are not the only one "you" in here.
There are a bunch of other "you" in here who did call him a stooge.

I don't care what other people call him. I am only responsible for what I say, and I think that Mearsheimer is worth listening to. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with his conclusions, but he is a well-known and respected political scientist. There are also well-known and respected political scientists who disagree with him. In the end, all we can do is listen to their arguments and arrive at our own conclusions, because experts in the subject matter can disagree just as strongly as us amateurs and laymen. That is why I would prefer to hear your own arguments for what you believe rather than have you just point at a video of a lecture and try to use it as an authority to pump up your conclusions. That isn't an argument that validates your opinions. In all honesty, if you really did listen to his video, you would likely hear a number of assumptions and claims that you disagreed with. I certainty did. That doesn't mean that I disrespect the man's intellectual honesty or dismiss everything he said out of hand.

 

[barbos]

You really don't read my posts. In my last post, I explicitly said that he wasn't a Putin stooge

"You" are not the only one "you" in here.
There are a bunch of other "you" in here who did call him a stooge.

I don't care what other people call him. I am only responsible for what I say, and I think that Mearsheimer is worth listening to. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with his conclusions, but he is a well-known and respected political scientist. There are also well-known and respected political scientists who disagree with him. In the end, all we can do is listen to their arguments and arrive at our own conclusions, because experts in the subject matter can disagree just as strongly as us amateurs and laymen. That is why I would prefer to hear your own arguments for what you believe rather than have you just point at a video of a lecture and try to use it as an authority to pump up your conclusions. That isn't an argument that validates your opinions. In all honesty, if you really did listen to his video, you would likely hear a number of assumptions and claims that you disagreed with. I certainty did. That doesn't mean that I disrespect the man's intellectual honesty or dismiss everything he said out of hand.

How convenient. [removed] that I barely answer to all these comments people make because I have not watched the video and when I explained why I don't, you claim to be responsible only for yours. No, you are responsible for all your gang. You are no different from the gang, you are in the gang, you are the gang. The gang who only listen to crap they want to listen.

That is why I would prefer to hear your own arguments for what you believe rather than have you just point at a video of a lecture and try to use it as an authority to pump up your conclusions.

How convenient. You (your fucking gang) had been dismissing me as paid Putin's troll for ages. And when I put a link to the lecture which basically repeats everything I have been saying, you suddenly became interested in what I have to say.
I told you what I have to say.